Interesting hypothosis

TwistedFemur · 01-31-06, 03:06 PM

Last night I watched the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" its set about 100 years after the capture of jerusalem.
What struck me was how much the christians then sounded like the muslims today,namely the priest at the "pilgrim camp" telling the newcomers that "Killing an infiedel is not murder, it is the path to heaven"

That preist sounds just like an radical imam today calling for the killing of the "infidels". and the knights templar are akin to the muslim terrorist groups today,and we can draw parallels between the Jihad's of today to the Crusades.

thinking about this it got me to thinking: Is there a pattern or cycle to the way religions evolve?

A quick internet search reveals that Islam is about 1400 years old.....interesting, what was happening in the name of chrisendom when it was about 1400 years old? My calculations put it right around the time of the crusades.

Now im not trying to start a war just a thoughful debate.

The Avon Lady · 01-31-06, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwistedFemur

What struck me was how much the christians then sounded like the muslims today

And what did the Muslims of those days sound like?

When you find the answer, you'll have realized how the way you've phrased your own statement above is the result of the completely twisted slant of history you've absorbed in school and in historically false movies like "Kingdom of Heaven".

The movie has already been discussed here several months ago.

Skybird · 01-31-06, 04:04 PM

I know that movie, too.

Islam and christianity do not really compare, although at first glance this seem to be the case (monotheistic, Abraham a central figur [nevertheless understood very differently], christian main figures beeing prophets in Islamic understanding, etc.)

However, there are some major differences. Church and Jesus' teachings never were in real correspondence. Jesus did not found the church, nor did he indicate he had such an absurd idea on his mind. islam - difficult to say: it's institutions, because it has no institutional level like the church in christianity, but for the sake of comparison: Islamic "churche" IS in correspondence with it's teachings and scriptures, and since these are highly contradicting and opportunistic they can excuse both violant and non-violant positions of Islam at the same time, which comes handy to confuse and irritate it's enemies, whereas violance by the church is a pervertion of Jesus' teachings. Islam attacked christianity, not the other way around, and it did so repeatedly. Most countries that today are Muslim countries, were under jewish or christian dominance before muhammad appeared. And Muhammad and Jesus - the first was a man of violance, combining his egoism with the need of social reforms, enforcing his very selfish interests and craving for public attention with murder, massmurder, war, raids, bloodshed, torture, intimidation, slavery, supression of females (harems are his very own invention and did not exist in Arabia before) and supressing opposing views; and claiming his personal ambitions were the will of Allah he positioned himself beyond reach for any critizism (questioning his privileges would have been a heresy). Jesus did not search wealth and privileges for himself, nor did he call for violance, nor did he raise his own hand aginst other people. Muhammad was a violant, predatory beduin, Jesus was - under influence of buddhist ideas with wich he probably came into contact during his likely travelling to India - preaching non-violant peace. He preached direct insight into God, and that his students shall not missionize by force but only talk to those that are willing to listen. The violance that was projected by the church during centuries had it's root in political self-interest of a corrupt church that had no basis in the faith it claimed to represent, the violance of Islam is it's conviction that it has the mission to make all non-Islam submitting to islam.

and lastly, although the film gives the impression that Sahaladin is the more tolerant one (one of the last scenes: he took the crucifix off the floor), it were the Christians beeing attacked after the Roman empire had fallen apart. The crusades were no attack in the first conducted by europeans, but a defensive operation to take back that territory that had been lost to the Muslim invasion. That europeans more and more head for the crusades not for spirtual, but for political, economical and material reasons, does not change this in principle.

If there were a cycle in the way religions develope, then comparing this would only make sense if the religions themselves could be compared. But in my understanding Islam even is no religion, but an ideology formed by and basing on non-authentic, "virtual" assumptions of a highly superstitous nature. Christian religion (I exclude the churches from that term, but refer exclusively to Jesus and the Mystic'S understanding of Jesus) is basing on an almost empirical approach, like buddhism. Here, immediate experience is at the heart and core of that religion'S attention, not the traditon, the rite, the dogma, the written hsitroy. The church never understood that and replaced the experience with the hierarchy of priest mediating between "God" and "believer". Islam also knows no immediate experience, and it's priests are not acting as mediators. They are reminding believers only that "Allah'" can only be found by believing, blindly, untested, unquestioned. The chruch told people to believe in the right thing, islam tells people how to correctly believe. Islam is about immitating the most important prophet it knows: Muhammad, and endlessly refering back to him (not the historical figure, but one figure one would like muhammad to have been). Islam also has no living mystic tradition anymore. It got supressed and held down by the orhtodoxy in the first centuries when it tried to emerge independently, and later was wiped out during the mongolian attack on today's Iraq in the 13th century. Sufism never was able to follow it's path and in many hidden monestaries degenerated into a occult tradition of trance, self-mutilation, and obscure superstition. The dancing derwishes are not representative for sufism.

No, I can't imagine the difference between Jesus teachings, and Islam beeing any greater. They are worlds apart. Islam also was successful in supressing philosophical and spiritual developement, it basically is oif the same kind today as it was during the first three centuries of it's existence (in which, in opposition to Islam's claims, was object of many earthly and man-made distortions that proiduced their fallout in the scriptures (what also is denied in Islam). the church tried to supress developements that were threatening it's power. Were Islam's orhtodoxy was successful in supressing such evolution of man until the modern present of today, the church had to give ground, and thus a spectrum of different interpretations of what Christian belief shall be, of science, philosophy, technolgy, humanitarian values, legal rights, arts, took place. That'S why in all htese fields the West is up and away and totally superior to Islam. It is the 21st versus the 7th century, in this regard. the porice for the west is that the diveristy also weakened the cultural identity. whereas in Islam there only is Islamn, unitied, on solid rock, unsplit, unquestioned, without doubt of it's Allah-wanted mission to rule all world and make all mankind submit to it, the West grew strong in the material world, but lost it's spiritual unity and strength. That's why so many people in the West today fall victim to Islam today, despite the obvious superiority of the West in terms of human rights, dignity, values, equality of man and woman, and so on. It is because we do not live by money and bread, entertainment and possessing things alone. we have spiritual needs, that the churches cannot satisfy. Islam also has nothing to offer in that regard, but covers that by dogmatic reglementation of all levels of live. By beeing told what you should do and think, in a way you have no more opportunity to ask if all this really is so right and okay.

and let there be no illusion: many people are happoy to escape the burden of freedom, for that also holds responsebilities. Many people are happy to be told what to do and what to believe, and dogmatism that way is understood as convincing strength. I said that I see islam as totalitarian. I mean this with regard to it's self-undertanding to have a right to rule the world, but also with regard to what incrtedible detialed level it is regulating and affecting private life, and is ruling even inside your house, and in your relations, and how it dominates yopu social life in general. It is not less totalitarian then let's say the ideology of facism.
Now show me where Jesus or Buddha were teaching that way, or created rules or institutions that they wanted to act in that way.

http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...=islam+skybird
and several other threads on crusades, Iran, religion in general, Islamic "tolerance (dhimma-system), and so on. Search-button!

the only pattern I can see is that every evolutionary levbel of human minds believes accoridng to the way it CAN believe, and this "Can" is defined also by knowledge and developement. Since Islam has opressed al this since over one thousand years, it is a set of very primitve and superstitous, hypocritical rules that reflct the evolutionary standard of those beduins living in a hard environement under such and such social conditions in arabai in the 7th century. The West, by weakening his official spiritual tradtion , allowed such evoultion to take place. that'S why today we are more than 1 thousand years ahead of Islam, and that is the reason why Islam cannot deal with us any different than like it does. It has not build the needed basis to go beyond that. That is also the reason why the chruches effort'S to envoke "dialogue" are doomed to fail. So far hey have acchieved nothing, and they never will. "You talk to your dog, but you cannot talk with your dog."

It is up to Islam all itself to let evolution create processes, or to hinder it. We cannot help these societies, they must face the same phases of developement, the same painful experiences, the same pain of giving birth to new ideas that were experienced by our Western ancestors. We cannot influence islam's willingnes to allow this. I will realize it itself, or it won't period. It's not our concern. Our only obligation is to strictly limit it to the sphere it now has under control. As long as it is that primitive, wild, and violant, we cannot allow to give it access into our own sphere of influence, and we shall not allow it the same level of technological abilities tht we have gained. It would turn them into tools only to overcome us, because it lacks the needed ethical understanding why it has no right to do that.

This is the way in which life works. It does not work different. I have no good expectation what can come from the legacy of a man like Muhammad. Peace - coming from a man like him? Most illogical an assumption that is.

SUBMAN1 · 01-31-06, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwistedFemur

Last night I watched the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" its set about 100 years after the capture of jerusalem.
What struck me was how much the christians then sounded like the muslims today,namely the priest at the "pilgrim camp" telling the newcomers that "Killing an infiedel is not murder, it is the path to heaven"

That preist sounds just like an radical imam today calling for the killing of the "infidels". and the knights templar are akin to the muslim terrorist groups today,and we can draw parallels between the Jihad's of today to the Crusades.

thinking about this it got me to thinking: Is there a pattern or cycle to the way religions evolve?

A quick internet search reveals that Islam is about 1400 years old.....interesting, what was happening in the name of chrisendom when it was about 1400 years old? My calculations put it right around the time of the crusades.

Now im not trying to start a war just a thoughful debate.

You calcs are wrong. Mohammed was one of the profits of CHrist before breaking off persay. That will put both religions at about 2000 years old.

-S

CCIP · 01-31-06, 05:33 PM

I'm not entirely sure what Skybird is trying to say, but my sense of the two-religion difference is basically as follows...

Christianity is a religion based on questionably reliable accounts of the teachings of a mystic who preached spiritual enlightenment on a personal level.
Islam is a religion based on a social and spiritual design, produced by one man who is both the key figure and main author.

Islam assumes an organzation and a (pretty much) political and social program; Christianity does not but its various branches have (with few rare exceptions) evolved these anyway.

That doesn't convince me that one is more dangerous than the other, though. It's a bit naive to try and remove Christianity from its institutional basis when the present-day reality shows it as very much otherwise.

Frankly, from a realist perspective, I don't think a large-scale 'de-institutionalizing' of Christian beliefs is ever going to be possible. The relative flexibility of Christianity, meanwhile, (as compared to Islam) makes it both more safe and also potentially just as if not more dangerous. :hmm:

Skybird · 01-31-06, 05:36 PM

Sorry, Subman?

There is consensus that the "birth of independant Muslim identity" is associated with Muhammad fleeing to Medina in 622 (hidjra). It was Mohammed who then constructed a theology that claimed to have a basis that reaches back through time and labelled Jesus as one of Islam'S prophets, and other biblic prophets as well. queer.

Islam is 1400 years old (the previous Abrahamic cult does not count, it was something diffrent and never mentioned anything like Allah or Muhammad or Qu'ran. The Ka'aba cult that embraced the former Abrahamic cult was changed by Muhammad, not to be independent anymore, but supporting newly created Islam). Christianity with focus on Jesus is 2000 years old. Makes a difference of 6oo years.

Let'S leave Noah out of this

Skybird · 01-31-06, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

I'm not entirely sure what Skybird is trying to say,

In all these years I was accused of many things, but never of this!

CCIP · 01-31-06, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

I'm not entirely sure what Skybird is trying to say,

In all these years I was accused of many things, but never of this!

Not entirely but almost. It just seems to come across as a sort of defense of Christianity, but your comparison seems to go more on the spiritual plan - where the two religions are, indeed, hugely different.

But I think the original intent of the thread is looking more at the institutional forms which the religions take, and that's not nearly always as different.

Skybird · 01-31-06, 05:49 PM

It is very different on the institutional level.

Church does not represent Jesus teachings. Jesus is imo heart and core of christianity. Thus: church and christianity are two different things.

Islam is represented by it's teachings and scriptures. where the church fails to be in correspondence with the christian message, Islam IS in correspondence with it'S message.

So, when both institutions are acting in a way that makes them appear to produce the same results (f.e. violance, or intolerance), then this is for different reasons nevertheless: the church shows that behavior because it is not in correspondence with it'S spiritual teachings, Islam shows the very same behavior becasue IT IS in correspondence with it's teachings. so the difference between the teachings must be immense.

From that one can argue that the chruches acted violantly for selfish reasons based in the material world, for politics, economical interests. while this also may be true for Islam (that holds scoial life and politics and religion all in one hand, different than we do in the West), it also acts violantly for spiritual reasons. The church does do not like that. It can only be accused to have claimed to act in the name of FALSE spiritual teachings of it's own, a pervertion of it's original message.

So, the violance of the churches is a symptom of a deep inner desease. The violance of islam shows that it is healthy and strong and fully reflects it's teachings - it is no pervertion at all.

I don't defend the church for itself. I don't want to have anything to do with them. I'm just after illustrating the immense differences between Islam and Christianity, because today it is en vogue to ignore these, and instead babble of the many similarities and "shared values". Laughable.

TwistedFemur · 01-31-06, 11:24 PM

[quote="CCIP

But I think the original intent of the thread is looking more at the institutional forms which the religions take, and that's not nearly always as different.[/quote]

Yes that is the intent of this thread...thank you

Iceman · 02-01-06, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Church does not represent Jesus teachings. Jesus is imo heart and core of christianity. Thus: church and christianity are two different things.

Exactly....A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ's teachings...now where Catholics,Baptists,Mormons, and any other "Religion" came about from or lay any kind of "True" authoritive claim to being the "True Church of God" came from selfish "Human" greed and agenda.

Christ said his "Kingdom" is not of this world and those who are true followers would be counted as the same.So such concerns about the day to day goings on of the world did not concern Christ...Render to Ceaser what is Ceaser's....

Hum...always knew I was an Alien....

Similairites...yep no Virgins waiting for me. Doh!

TLAM Strike · 02-01-06, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

Hum...always knew I was an Alien....

Same here... except I must be from one of those races that want to conquer the universe... :hmm:

Skybird · 02-01-06, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

Hum...always knew I was an Alien....

Same here... except I must be from one of those races that want to conquer the universe... :hmm:

I'm currently re-reading Philip K. Dicks very good novel "The man in the high castle", and your remark reminds me of a joke that is given in it about the Nazis (that have won WWII in that novel): a flying saucer is landing on a Nazi airbase at Berlin, and two green Martians step out. the Nazi officer of the security guards that are send to the landing site demands their Arian passports and documents prooving their Arian identity. The Martians say they do not have such things on their planet. Said the Nazi officer to one subordinate: "Go call Berlin and tell them that Mars is populated by Jews completely."

gdogghenrikson · 02-01-06, 07:02 AM

some one should lock this thread before it turns into a subsim holy war

sonar732 · 02-01-06, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gdogghenrikson

some one should lock this thread before it turns into a subsim holy war

For once, I think this topic will stay open. Sky has brought a great many points in his postings. When you have Iceman agreeing with Skybird...it's almost scary. :rotfl:

I also agree with Skybird...shoot, even my pastor will tell us every Sunday..."If you want someone to follow or look up to...don't look at me, keep your eyes on the cross."

01-31-06, 03:06 PM	#1
TwistedFemur Frogman Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 302 Downloads: 72 Uploads: 0	Interesting hypothosis Last night I watched the movie "Kingdom of Heaven" its set about 100 years after the capture of jerusalem. What struck me was how much the christians then sounded like the muslims today,namely the priest at the "pilgrim camp" telling the newcomers that "Killing an infiedel is not murder, it is the path to heaven" That preist sounds just like an radical imam today calling for the killing of the "infidels". and the knights templar are akin to the muslim terrorist groups today,and we can draw parallels between the Jihad's of today to the Crusades. thinking about this it got me to thinking: Is there a pattern or cycle to the way religions evolve? A quick internet search reveals that Islam is about 1400 years old.....interesting, what was happening in the name of chrisendom when it was about 1400 years old? My calculations put it right around the time of the crusades. Now im not trying to start a war just a thoughful debate. __________________ <a href="http://www.dewmocracy.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.dewmocracy.com/images/banner_distortion.jpg" border="0" alt="Vote for MTN DEW(R) Distortion(TM) - Dewmocracy.com" /></a>

01-31-06, 04:04 PM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,605 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	I know that movie, too. Islam and christianity do not really compare, although at first glance this seem to be the case (monotheistic, Abraham a central figur [nevertheless understood very differently], christian main figures beeing prophets in Islamic understanding, etc.) However, there are some major differences. Church and Jesus' teachings never were in real correspondence. Jesus did not found the church, nor did he indicate he had such an absurd idea on his mind. islam - difficult to say: it's institutions, because it has no institutional level like the church in christianity, but for the sake of comparison: Islamic "churche" IS in correspondence with it's teachings and scriptures, and since these are highly contradicting and opportunistic they can excuse both violant and non-violant positions of Islam at the same time, which comes handy to confuse and irritate it's enemies, whereas violance by the church is a pervertion of Jesus' teachings. Islam attacked christianity, not the other way around, and it did so repeatedly. Most countries that today are Muslim countries, were under jewish or christian dominance before muhammad appeared. And Muhammad and Jesus - the first was a man of violance, combining his egoism with the need of social reforms, enforcing his very selfish interests and craving for public attention with murder, massmurder, war, raids, bloodshed, torture, intimidation, slavery, supression of females (harems are his very own invention and did not exist in Arabia before) and supressing opposing views; and claiming his personal ambitions were the will of Allah he positioned himself beyond reach for any critizism (questioning his privileges would have been a heresy). Jesus did not search wealth and privileges for himself, nor did he call for violance, nor did he raise his own hand aginst other people. Muhammad was a violant, predatory beduin, Jesus was - under influence of buddhist ideas with wich he probably came into contact during his likely travelling to India - preaching non-violant peace. He preached direct insight into God, and that his students shall not missionize by force but only talk to those that are willing to listen. The violance that was projected by the church during centuries had it's root in political self-interest of a corrupt church that had no basis in the faith it claimed to represent, the violance of Islam is it's conviction that it has the mission to make all non-Islam submitting to islam. and lastly, although the film gives the impression that Sahaladin is the more tolerant one (one of the last scenes: he took the crucifix off the floor), it were the Christians beeing attacked after the Roman empire had fallen apart. The crusades were no attack in the first conducted by europeans, but a defensive operation to take back that territory that had been lost to the Muslim invasion. That europeans more and more head for the crusades not for spirtual, but for political, economical and material reasons, does not change this in principle. If there were a cycle in the way religions develope, then comparing this would only make sense if the religions themselves could be compared. But in my understanding Islam even is no religion, but an ideology formed by and basing on non-authentic, "virtual" assumptions of a highly superstitous nature. Christian religion (I exclude the churches from that term, but refer exclusively to Jesus and the Mystic'S understanding of Jesus) is basing on an almost empirical approach, like buddhism. Here, immediate experience is at the heart and core of that religion'S attention, not the traditon, the rite, the dogma, the written hsitroy. The church never understood that and replaced the experience with the hierarchy of priest mediating between "God" and "believer". Islam also knows no immediate experience, and it's priests are not acting as mediators. They are reminding believers only that "Allah'" can only be found by believing, blindly, untested, unquestioned. The chruch told people to believe in the right thing, islam tells people how to correctly believe. Islam is about immitating the most important prophet it knows: Muhammad, and endlessly refering back to him (not the historical figure, but one figure one would like muhammad to have been). Islam also has no living mystic tradition anymore. It got supressed and held down by the orhtodoxy in the first centuries when it tried to emerge independently, and later was wiped out during the mongolian attack on today's Iraq in the 13th century. Sufism never was able to follow it's path and in many hidden monestaries degenerated into a occult tradition of trance, self-mutilation, and obscure superstition. The dancing derwishes are not representative for sufism. No, I can't imagine the difference between Jesus teachings, and Islam beeing any greater. They are worlds apart. Islam also was successful in supressing philosophical and spiritual developement, it basically is oif the same kind today as it was during the first three centuries of it's existence (in which, in opposition to Islam's claims, was object of many earthly and man-made distortions that proiduced their fallout in the scriptures (what also is denied in Islam). the church tried to supress developements that were threatening it's power. Were Islam's orhtodoxy was successful in supressing such evolution of man until the modern present of today, the church had to give ground, and thus a spectrum of different interpretations of what Christian belief shall be, of science, philosophy, technolgy, humanitarian values, legal rights, arts, took place. That'S why in all htese fields the West is up and away and totally superior to Islam. It is the 21st versus the 7th century, in this regard. the porice for the west is that the diveristy also weakened the cultural identity. whereas in Islam there only is Islamn, unitied, on solid rock, unsplit, unquestioned, without doubt of it's Allah-wanted mission to rule all world and make all mankind submit to it, the West grew strong in the material world, but lost it's spiritual unity and strength. That's why so many people in the West today fall victim to Islam today, despite the obvious superiority of the West in terms of human rights, dignity, values, equality of man and woman, and so on. It is because we do not live by money and bread, entertainment and possessing things alone. we have spiritual needs, that the churches cannot satisfy. Islam also has nothing to offer in that regard, but covers that by dogmatic reglementation of all levels of live. By beeing told what you should do and think, in a way you have no more opportunity to ask if all this really is so right and okay. and let there be no illusion: many people are happoy to escape the burden of freedom, for that also holds responsebilities. Many people are happy to be told what to do and what to believe, and dogmatism that way is understood as convincing strength. I said that I see islam as totalitarian. I mean this with regard to it's self-undertanding to have a right to rule the world, but also with regard to what incrtedible detialed level it is regulating and affecting private life, and is ruling even inside your house, and in your relations, and how it dominates yopu social life in general. It is not less totalitarian then let's say the ideology of facism. Now show me where Jesus or Buddha were teaching that way, or created rules or institutions that they wanted to act in that way. http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopi...=islam+skybird and several other threads on crusades, Iran, religion in general, Islamic "tolerance (dhimma-system), and so on. Search-button! the only pattern I can see is that every evolutionary levbel of human minds believes accoridng to the way it CAN believe, and this "Can" is defined also by knowledge and developement. Since Islam has opressed al this since over one thousand years, it is a set of very primitve and superstitous, hypocritical rules that reflct the evolutionary standard of those beduins living in a hard environement under such and such social conditions in arabai in the 7th century. The West, by weakening his official spiritual tradtion , allowed such evoultion to take place. that'S why today we are more than 1 thousand years ahead of Islam, and that is the reason why Islam cannot deal with us any different than like it does. It has not build the needed basis to go beyond that. That is also the reason why the chruches effort'S to envoke "dialogue" are doomed to fail. So far hey have acchieved nothing, and they never will. "You talk to your dog, but you cannot talk with your dog." It is up to Islam all itself to let evolution create processes, or to hinder it. We cannot help these societies, they must face the same phases of developement, the same painful experiences, the same pain of giving birth to new ideas that were experienced by our Western ancestors. We cannot influence islam's willingnes to allow this. I will realize it itself, or it won't period. It's not our concern. Our only obligation is to strictly limit it to the sphere it now has under control. As long as it is that primitive, wild, and violant, we cannot allow to give it access into our own sphere of influence, and we shall not allow it the same level of technological abilities tht we have gained. It would turn them into tools only to overcome us, because it lacks the needed ethical understanding why it has no right to do that. This is the way in which life works. It does not work different. I have no good expectation what can come from the legacy of a man like Muhammad. Peace - coming from a man like him? Most illogical an assumption that is. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-31-06, 05:33 PM	#5
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	I'm not entirely sure what Skybird is trying to say, but my sense of the two-religion difference is basically as follows... Christianity is a religion based on questionably reliable accounts of the teachings of a mystic who preached spiritual enlightenment on a personal level. Islam is a religion based on a social and spiritual design, produced by one man who is both the key figure and main author. Islam assumes an organzation and a (pretty much) political and social program; Christianity does not but its various branches have (with few rare exceptions) evolved these anyway. That doesn't convince me that one is more dangerous than the other, though. It's a bit naive to try and remove Christianity from its institutional basis when the present-day reality shows it as very much otherwise. Frankly, from a realist perspective, I don't think a large-scale 'de-institutionalizing' of Christian beliefs is ever going to be possible. The relative flexibility of Christianity, meanwhile, (as compared to Islam) makes it both more safe and also potentially just as if not more dangerous. :hmm: __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

01-31-06, 05:36 PM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,605 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Sorry, Subman? There is consensus that the "birth of independant Muslim identity" is associated with Muhammad fleeing to Medina in 622 (hidjra). It was Mohammed who then constructed a theology that claimed to have a basis that reaches back through time and labelled Jesus as one of Islam'S prophets, and other biblic prophets as well. queer. Islam is 1400 years old (the previous Abrahamic cult does not count, it was something diffrent and never mentioned anything like Allah or Muhammad or Qu'ran. The Ka'aba cult that embraced the former Abrahamic cult was changed by Muhammad, not to be independent anymore, but supporting newly created Islam). Christianity with focus on Jesus is 2000 years old. Makes a difference of 6oo years. Let'S leave Noah out of this __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-31-06, 05:49 PM	#9
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,605 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	It is very different on the institutional level. Church does not represent Jesus teachings. Jesus is imo heart and core of christianity. Thus: church and christianity are two different things. Islam is represented by it's teachings and scriptures. where the church fails to be in correspondence with the christian message, Islam IS in correspondence with it'S message. So, when both institutions are acting in a way that makes them appear to produce the same results (f.e. violance, or intolerance), then this is for different reasons nevertheless: the church shows that behavior because it is not in correspondence with it'S spiritual teachings, Islam shows the very same behavior becasue IT IS in correspondence with it's teachings. so the difference between the teachings must be immense. From that one can argue that the chruches acted violantly for selfish reasons based in the material world, for politics, economical interests. while this also may be true for Islam (that holds scoial life and politics and religion all in one hand, different than we do in the West), it also acts violantly for spiritual reasons. The church does do not like that. It can only be accused to have claimed to act in the name of FALSE spiritual teachings of it's own, a pervertion of it's original message. So, the violance of the churches is a symptom of a deep inner desease. The violance of islam shows that it is healthy and strong and fully reflects it's teachings - it is no pervertion at all. I don't defend the church for itself. I don't want to have anything to do with them. I'm just after illustrating the immense differences between Islam and Christianity, because today it is en vogue to ignore these, and instead babble of the many similarities and "shared values". Laughable. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

01-31-06, 11:24 PM	#10
TwistedFemur Frogman Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 302 Downloads: 72 Uploads: 0	[quote="CCIP But I think the original intent of the thread is looking more at the institutional forms which the religions take, and that's not nearly always as different.[/quote] Yes that is the intent of this thread...thank you __________________ <a href="http://www.dewmocracy.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.dewmocracy.com/images/banner_distortion.jpg" border="0" alt="Vote for MTN DEW(R) Distortion(TM) - Dewmocracy.com" /></a>

02-01-06, 07:02 AM	#14
gdogghenrikson Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 978 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	some one should lock this thread before it turns into a subsim holy war __________________ And when you loose control, you'll reap the harvest you have sown.